REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9070-9071 OF 2022

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 481-482 of 2019)

MOHD. SABEER @ SHABIR HUSSAIN … APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P. STATE ROAD

TRANSPORT CORPORATION … RESPONDENT (S)

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Leave granted.

2.The present appeals are directed against the final order dated 12.10.2018

passed by the High Court of Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in

Review Petition No. 391 of 2018 and against the impugned final judgment

dated 11.09.2018 passed by the High Court of New Delhi.

1

3.Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows:

I.The Appellant, who is a scrap dealer, was travelling in a bus bearing

No. UP-25T-9664 towards his residence in Delhi from his native place

at Noor Pur, Gajrola.

II.The driver of the bus, who is the Respondent No.1 herein was driving

in a rash and negligent manner. At around 12:30 am, near the Jindal

Pipe Factory in Ghaziabad, the Respondent no.1 driver hit a standing

tempo which was parked on the left side of the road.

III.As a result of this accident, the Appellant and the other passengers in

the bus received grave injuries all over their bodies. The Appellant

was aged 37 years at the time of the accident and was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month. As per the Disability Certificate, the Appellant

suffered permanent disability of 70%, his right lower limb amongst

other injuries.

4.The Appellant after the accident filed a claim petition before the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Delhi-II, Dwarka Court, New Delhi

claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs).

5.The Ld. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as

‘MACT’) after examining the evidence and issues at hand, held that the

Respondent No.1 was the driver of the vehicle, and it was his rash and

2

negligent driving that caused the accident. The Ld. MACT awarded a

compensation of Rs.15,76,465/- to the Appellant along with 7.5% interest

per annum, the breakup of the same is as follows:

Cost Of Artificial limb and its MaintenanceRs. 5,70,000/-

Loss Of Future Earning Rs. 6,09,345/-

Medical Expenses Rs. 57,650/-

Attendant Charges Rs. 11,802/-

Conveyance Rs. 10,000/-

Special Diet Rs. 15,000/-

Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-

Loss of Amenities of Life Rs. 1,00,000/-

Loss due to Disability and DisfigurementRs. 1,00,000/-

TOTALRs. 15,76,465/-

6.The Appellant then filed MAC App. No. 444/2013 before the High

Court of Delhi on grounds that the Ld. MACT did not calculate the loss

of earning capacity, future prospects and wrong computation of the

Appellant’s disability.

3

7.The High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 11.09.2018 modified

the award passed by the Ld. MACT and disposed of the Appeal by

enhancing the compensation to Rs.16,70,932/- with 9% interest per

annum. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:-

“…Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the

evidence on record, I find that on the aspect of discrepancy in

timing of the accident, there is no cross- examination of Injured

and so, Insurer cannot be absolved from paying the

compensation awarded. It is not the case of Conductor (R2W1)

that the Injured was not travelling in the bus in question.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the evidence of

Injured (PW-4) to hold that the negligence was of the bus driver

in causing of the accident in question. The Tribunal has

assessed the functional disability of Injured to be 30%. The

permanent disability is 70% in relation to right lower limb. It is

a case of amputation of right leg below the knee and so, the

functional disability is assessed at 35%. On the quantum

aspect, I find that though there is "loss of future earning", but

the "earning capacity" of the Injured has been certainly

compromised. Income of the deceased has been assessed by the

Tribunal on the basis of ITRS, which were filed after this

accident, but there is no basis to conclude that the income of

Injured was less than the one reflected in the ITRS for the year

2008-09. On this aspect also, there is no cross-examination of

Injured. Therefore, in the facts of instant case, the Tribunal has

rightly assessed the "loss of earning capacity" while taking the

income of the Injured as reflected in the ITRs. The Tribunal has

erred in applying the multiplier of 16. The applicable multiplier

is of 15. As regards the age of Injured, there is no cross-

examination of the Injured on this aspect. Therefore, the age of

the Injured is taken to be 37 years, which would attract the

multiplier of 15. ITRS relied upon by Injured reveals that his

income had increased despite the disability caused and so, it

cannot be said that there is "loss of future earning.…”

4

8.Subsequently, the Appellant filed a Review Petition No. 391 of

2018 before the High Court of New Delhi seeking for enhancement of

compensation to Rs.20,00,000/-, and the same was dismissed vide

judgment dated 12.10.2018 whilst upholding the judgment passed in the

appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the Appellant herein has filed the

present Civil Appeal.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

9.The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that : -

I.The High Court wrongly assessed the appellant’s loss of income due to

the disability to be only 35%, when the medical board has assessed the

petitioner’s permanent disability to be 70%. The appellant as a result of

the injuries cannot drive his vehicle and cannot lift heavy weights.

II.Since the Appellant’s income was assessed on the basis of documentary

evidence, the Appellant ought to have been awarded future prospects to

the extent of 50%.

III.The compensation granted for the repair, purchase and maintenance of

the Artificial leg is inadequate. It was submitted that the cost of the

artificial limb is Rs.2,60,000/-, and the life of the limb is 5-6 years. The

limb further requires repair after every 6 months, and the cost of repair

is between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The Appellant is aged only 37

5

years and will require the limb for the rest of his life, which would mean

that the current compensation of Rs.5,20,000/- is inadequate.

IV.The compensation awarded to the Appellant under the head “Pain and

Agony” and “loss due to disability and disfigurement” being

Rs.1,00,000/- each is inadequate. The counsel relied on Anant son of

Sidheshwar Dukre Vs. Pratap son of Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Anr.

1

.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

10.Per contra, The Ld. Counsel for the respondents contended that:

I. The High Court has rightly taken functional disability as 35% towards

amputation of lower limb. The High Court has already increased the

future loss of Income from Rs.6,09,345/- to Rs.6,66,480/- and further

increased the amount towards conveyance from Rs.10,000/- to

Rs.50,000/-.

II.The High Court has rightly not granted future prospects as the Income

Tax Returns of the Appellant has increased despite disability caused

from Rs. 1,26,947/- from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 to Rs.1,67,147/-

from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009.

1 Civil Appeal No. 8420 of 2018 (Dated : August 21, 2022)

6

III. The Appellant is a scrap dealer and works out of his shop. He does not

require a lot of movement to carry out his work and therefore his

disability does not affect his earning capacity.

IV.The Appellant had already filed a review petition in the High Court and

the same was dismissed rightfully.

ANALYSIS

11.We have heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the Appellant

and the Respondents in great detail.

12.The High Court has rightly held that the accident in question did

take place, the Appellant did suffer damages due to the negligence of

Respondent No.1 driver and that the Insurer cannot be absolved from

paying the compensation Awarded. The only question that remains for us

to decide is on the aspect of the quantum of damages awarded.

LOSS OF INCOME DUE TO FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY

13.The Appellant has suffered an amputation of the lower right limb, a

fracture in the medial wall of the bilateral orbit, crush injury right leg,

fracture tibia right leg, exposed vessels and other injuries. As per the

7

disability certificate, the Appellant has suffered 70% disability, however

the High Court has held that the Appellant has only suffered 35% loss in

future earnings due to the disability.

14.To assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded, this Court

has to assess whether the permanent disability caused has any adverse

effect on the earning capacity of the Appellant, as held by this Court in

the case of Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande and Anr.

2

. The relevant

paragraph of the judgment is quoted hereunder :-

“The crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration

thus is to assess whether the permanent disability has any

adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured. We feel

that the conclusion of the MACT on the application of

aforesaid test is erroneous. A very myopic view is taken by

the MACT in taking the view that 70% permanent disability

suffered by the appellant would not impact the earning

capacity of the appellant. The MACT thought that since the

appellant is a chartered accountant he is supposed to do

sitting work and therefore his working capacity

is not impaired….. A person who is engaged and cannot

freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match

the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and

bodily able. Movements of the appellant have been restricted

to a large extent and that too at a young age.”

15.This Court has also laid out in the case of Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar

and Anr.

3

that where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of

injuries, the assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings would

2 (2017) 3 SCC 351

3 (2011) 1 SCC 343

8

depend upon the impact and effect of the Permanent Disability on his earning

capacity. This Court observed as under :-

“Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a

result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the

head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect

and impact of such permanent disability on his earning

capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the

percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of

economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the

cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of

loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability

will be different from the percentage of permanent disability.

Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a

particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would

result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and

consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the

permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of

future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the

extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent

(percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of

either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to

be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently

disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after

assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a

percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of

money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying

the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of

dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on

appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may

find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of

the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the

percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course,

the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination

of compensation.”

16.The Appellant herein has suffered permanent disability of 70% and

has an amputated right lower limb amongst other injuries. The High

9

Court has wrongly taken the view that the Appellant has only suffered

35% functional disability. The Appellant is not a salaried person but is

self-employed who manages his business. For the Appellant to be able to

augment his income, he is most definitely required to move around. The

Appellant can also not drive on his own, which hinders his mobility

further. This proves that the functional disability of the Appellant will

severely impact his earning capacity, and the 35% functional disability

calculated by the High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of

the case and in our view the loss of future earning capacity must be

calculated at 60%.

FUTURE PROSPECTS

17.The High Court has not applied the quantum for future prospect in

the compensation granted. In its reasoning, the High Court has stated that

the Income tax returns relied upon by the Appellant show that despite the

injury the Appellant’s income had subsequently increased and hence it

cannot be said that there is a loss of future earnings.

18. It is a well settled position of law that in cases of permanent

disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not

just future loss of income, but also future prospects. It has been reiterated

by this Court in multiple instances that “just compensation” must be

10

interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant in the same position

as he was before the accident took place.

19.The accident that caused the injury took place on 12.06.2009. The

acknowledgement of both the Income Tax Returns produced by the

Appellant show that Tax Returns were till 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009.

Both the Income Tax Returns produced as proof of income were from

before the accident took place, and hence the High Court’s finding that

the income of the Appellant has increased after the disability is incorrect.

20.It is also to be noted that even if the income of the Appellant had

increased after the accident, it would not be enough grounds to disable

the Appellant from claiming compensation for future prospect as the rise

in income may be attributed to multiple other factors.

21.In light of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi

& Others

4

, the applicable 40% addition of future prospects will be given

as compensation to the Appellant herein.

COMPENSATION FOR THE PURCHASE AND MAINTENANCE

OF THE PROSTHETIC LEG

22.The High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,20,000/- for

the prosthetic limb and Rs.50,000/- towards repair and maintenance of the

4 (2017) 16 SCC 680

11

same. The Appellant submits that the cost of the prosthetic limb itself is

Rs. 2,60,000/- and the life of the prosthetic limb is only 5-6 years. The

prosthetic limb also requires repair and maintenance after every 6 months

to 1 year, and each repair costs between Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000/-. This

would mean that the prosthetic limb would last the Appellant for only 15

years under the current compensation. The Appellant at the time of the

accident was aged 37 years and has a full life ahead. It has been clearly

stated by this Court in the case of Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dukre

(Supra) that the purpose of fair compensation is to restore the injured to

the position he was in prior to the accident as best as possible. The

relevant paragraph of the judgment is being extracted herein:

“In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and

disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person

must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but

also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due

to the injury. The Claimant is entitled to be compensated for

his inability to lead a full life and enjoy those things and

amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the

injuries.”

“The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act

is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the

position prior to the accident.”

23.As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb and

its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15 years, even if we

were to assume that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few

12

years. The Appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it

would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if

not more. We are of the opinion that the Appellant must be compensated

so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is

able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For

the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation

of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an

additional Rs. 5,00,000/-.

NON-PECUNIARY COMPENSATION

24.The High Court has upheld the compensation awarded by the Ld.

Tribunal for non-pecuniary damages, which comes to Rs. 3,00,000/- in

total. Considering the nature of the permanent disability caused by the

accident and the effect it will have on the Appellant’s life, this Court is of

the opinion that the compensation provided by the High Court for non-

pecuniary heads is inadequate.

25.In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.

5

dealing with

the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held that:

5 (1995) 1 SCC 551

13

“Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of compensation

payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be

assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special

damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has

actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated

in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are

those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical

calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary

damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i)

medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the

date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-

pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i)

damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering,

already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii)

damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life

which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of

injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii)

damages for loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of

injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is

shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,

disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.”

26.In light of the above decision of this Court and the facts and

circumstances of the case at hand, the compensation to be awarded is as

follows:

I. Compensation for pain and suffering – Rs. 2,00,000/-

II. Compensation for Loss of Amenities of Life – Rs. 2,00,000/-

III. Compensation for disability and disfigurement – Rs. 2,00,000/-

CONCLUSION

27.We are of the opinion that while awarding compensation in cases

of permanent disability caused to claimants, the courts must look at the

14

case in totality, and must consider the socio-economic background of the

claimants. The Appellant herein comes from an economically weaker

section of the society.

28.It is almost universally seen that persons from marginalized

backgrounds often face an additional layer of discrimination due to bodily

disabilities. This is because persons from marginalized sections of the

society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital,

and a new disability more often than not compounds to such

discrimination. In such circumstances, to preserve the essence of justice,

it becomes the duty of the Court to at the very least restore the claimant

as best as possible to the position he was in before the occurrence of the

disability, and to do so must award compensation in a liberal manner.

29.While no material compensation can completely negate the trauma

and suffering that the injured and his family faces, the law only knows the

language of monetary compensation in such cases. It then becomes to

duty of the court to translate the provisions of monetary compensation

into a fabrication that helps the injured and his family in coping with their

loss.

15

30.On the basis of the abovementioned facts and analysis, this Court is

of the opinion that the just compensation to be awarded to the

claimant/appellant under different heads ought to be as under :-

Cost Of Artificial limb and its MaintenanceRs. 12,80,000/-

Loss Of Earning Capacity due to Functional

Disability

Rs. 11,34,000/-

Future Prospects Rs. 7,61,668

Medical Expenses Rs. 57,650/-

Attendant Charges Rs. 11,802/-

Conveyance Rs. 10,000/-

Special Diet Rs. 15,000/-

Pain and Suffering Rs. 2,00,000/-

Loss of Amenities of Life Rs. 2,00,000/-

Loss due to Disability and DisfigurementRs. 2,00,000/-

TOTALRs. 38,70,120 /-

16

31.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned

judgment is liable to be modified as above and the claimant/appellant is

held entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,70,120/-

along with 9% interest per annum from the date of making the

application.

32.Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed.

….......…………....……….,J.

(KRISHNA MURARI)

….…..…....…................…,J.

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)

NEW DELHI;

09

TH

DECMEBER, 2022

17